Health Care

[Guest guest]

Am of the opinion both Republicans and Democrats can be so evil.

Below is a material written by Howard Dean. Please ponder before going to your representatives/governors if whether we should go for the change as the present system really stinks. As another member of a forum said, VA and Medicare do not deny treatments like the private insurance companies.

 

Melly

=================

Howard Dean: How Republican Attack Dogs Plan to Thwart Health Reform By Howard Dean, Chelsea Green Publishing Posted on August 3, 2009, Printed on August 3, 2009 http://www.alternet .org/story/ 141713/ Editor's note: In his new book, Howard Dean's Prescription for Real HealthReform, the physician and former presidential candidate devotes a chapter tothe forces arrayed against substantive health reform -- the insuranceindustry, big business, some pharmaceutical companies and politicalconservatives. The following is an excerpt in which he discusses the longfight against progress mounted by conservatives. During the early 1990s, under the leadership of Representative Newt Gingrich(R-GA) and Senator Bob Dole (R-KS) and bolstered by the ideological supportof the Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute, and Manhattan Institute,Republicans

successfully defeated President Clinton's health reform effort.Conservatives of all stripes argued that healthcare reform was "creepingsocialism" or "big government," denied the existence of a healthcare crisis,or co-opted the term reform to push their own agendas and dilute support fora comprehensive solution to the nation's healthcare crisis. Unfortunately, today's Republicans are no less inflammatory. Relying on avery similar playbook, conservatives are distorting progressive proposals inan effort to obstruct reform. In May 2009, GOP wordsmith Frank Luntzauthored a new messaging memo defining the Republican rhetoric on healthcarereform. The memo, titled "The Language of Healthcare 2009,is based onpolling results and . . . captures not just what Americans want to see butexactly what they want to hear." The memo suggests "The Words That Work" andinstructs that "from today forward, they should be

used by everyone." Luntz warns that "if the dynamic becomes 'President Obama is on the side ofreform and Republicans are against it,' then the battle is lost and everyword in this document is useless." The trouble is, the document is alreadyuseless. Because rather than challenging the tenets of American reformproposals, Luntz establishes a straw man argument against a nonexistenthealth plan. Buried amid the usual rhetoric about government-run healthcareis Luntz's predictable contradiction: He instructs Republicans to "bevocally and passionately on the side of REFORM" but then urges GOP lawmakersto misrepresent and obstruct any real chance of passing comprehensivelegislation. "Humanize your approach," but argue that healthcare reform "will result indelayed and potentially even denied treatment, procedures and/or medicationsAcknowledge the crisis" but ask your constituents "would you rather .

.. 'pay the costs you pay today for the quality of care you currently receive,OR 'Pay less for your care, but potentially have to wait weeks for testsand months for treatments you need.'" In other words, say there is a crisis but then argue that healthcare reformwould lead to "the government setting standards of care" and government rationing care" and would "put the Washington bureaucrats in charge ofhealth care.This plays into more favorable Republican territory byprotecting individual care while downplays the need for a comprehensivenational plan," the memo states. Readers are also instructed to conflate Obama's fairly moderate hybridapproach to reform (building on the current private-public system ofdelivering healthcare) with "denial horror stories from Canada & Co." Focus on timeliness-" the plan put forward by the Democrats will deny peopletreatments they need and make them

wait to get the treatments they areallowed to receive"-and argue that Republicans will provide "in a word,more: 'more access to more treatments and more doctors . . . with lessinterference from insurance companies and Washington politicians and specialinterests.'" But that's the major problem with Luntz's memo: It tries to obstruct healthreform by ignoring what Obama is actually offering. Instead, Luntz isattacking an easy extreme-what he wishes the Democrats were proposing-andpretending that the Republicans actually have some kind of healthcaresolution (the memo instructs Republicans to focus on targeting waste, fraud,and abuse). For their part, Republicans have no solution to the healthcare crisis. Infact, a recent article in Politico.com noted that the GOP is "stumbling" tofind new ideas for reforming the healthcare system. "No Republicans leadingthe charge . . . have coalesced the party

behind them," the article notes. Their message is still vague and unformed. Their natural allies amonginsurers, drug makers and doctors remain at the negotiating table with theDemocrats. So Republicans now worry the party has waited so long to figureout where it stands that it will make it harder to block what PresidentBarack Obama is trying to do." To the extent that Republicans are discussing healthcare, they're relying ontrite McCain-campaign talking points and old hands from the 1990s. In otherwords, they've outsourced the conversation to attack dogs and relinquishedthe serious debate about how to lower costs, increase access, and improvequality. The truth, and what the Politico.com article hints at, is that the GOPleadership has little understanding of healthcare issues. In February 2009,House Republicans formed a study group to devise so-called free-marketalternatives to President

Obama's healthcare proposal. Minority Leader JohnBoehner (R-OH) tapped former GOP whip Representative Roy Blunt (R-MO) tolead the group of sixteen Republicans, including Representatives MichaelBurgess (R-TX) and John Shadegg (R-AZ). "Through this working group,Republicans will develop real solutions to improve our health care system byputting patients before paperwork and frivolous lawsuits," Blunt promised.But at the group's first meeting, "members reviewed polling data and agreedto bring in a series of experts to discuss problems with the health caresystem and potential solutions." As of this writing, the Republicans haveyet to embrace a healthcare solution or properly diagnose the cause of the healthcare crisis. In April, the Health Policy Consensus Group, headed by the conservativeGalen Institute, published "a vision for consumer-driven health care reform"that focuses on tax breaks for

healthcare and giving Americans "control"over their healthcare dollars. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) had proposed asimilar plan during the presidential campaign, but he never convincedAmericans to abandon their employer-provided insurance for the promise ofcheaper coverage in the individual market. Part of the problem rests in thefallacy of the theory; the rest, in the burden of experience. After all,Americans are routinely denied coverage in the unregulated individual healthinsurance market, and small businesses are "frequently finding healthpolicies too expensive and are dropping coverage, sending even more peopleshopping for insurance." Healthy Americans who do find coverage enroll inbare-bones plans that offer little substantive protection. As The Miami Herald recently reported, insurers deny coverage for patientswith "diabetes, hepatitis C, multiple sclerosis, schizophrenia,

quadriplegiaParkinson's disease and AIDS/ HIV." Moreover, "some insurers willautomatically reject applicants who are using certain prescription drugs.Wellpoint denies anyone who within the past year has taken Abilify andZyprexa for mental disorders as well as Neupogen, which is used to treat theside effects of chemotherapy. Vista lists the anticoagulant warfarin and thepain medication OxyContin. Both companies list insulin." And why not? Competition without meaningful regulations incentivizescompanies to offer insurance to only the healthiest Americans. How elsecould they beat the insurer across the street? Offering coverage to sickerAmericans would attract a sicker pool of enrollees and serve as acompetitive disadvantage. In fact, free-market healthcare fits thedefinition of a failed market. A market fails when these conditions exist: . A monopoly, which occurs if a single buyer or seller can

exert significantinfluence over prices or output. In healthcare, "insurer and hospitalmarkets are increasingly dominated by large insurers and provider systems,"an Urban Institute report points out. "The increased concentration has madeit difficult for the nation to reap the benefits usually associated withcompetitive markets." . Negative externalities, which occur if the market does not take intoaccount the impact of an economic activity on outsiders. In the Wild Westenvironment of the individual health marketplace, companies leave thesickest patients without coverage. Healthcare costs increase for everyonewhen patients are forced to forgo early and appropriate care or to visit theemergency room once a condition becomes unbearable. . Asymmetric information, which occurs when one party has more or betterinformation than the other party. Americans looking for coverage in theindividual market

have no way of comparing different policies and rarelyknow what the plans actually cover. Conservative health proposals double down on this broken marketplace. They:(1) eliminate the employer tax exemption for health benefits, (2) provideeveryone with a refundable tax credit to go out and purchase individualcoverage, and (3) loosen the already lax insurer regulations. The resultsare predictable. Not only will Americans with preexisting conditions gowithout coverage-or, at best, be offered very expensive plans-but as healthyAmericans with bare-bones policies fall ill, they'll discover that theirinsurer has little enthusiasm for paying claims. Conservatives may no longer deny the existence of a healthcare crisis, butthey sure do misdiagnose the causes of rising healthcare costs. Blunt, forinstance, promised that "Republicans will develop real solutions to improveour health care system by putting

patients before paperwork and frivolouslawsuits." But to identify "real solutions," we must first properly diagnosethe problem. Blunt's argument that "frivolous lawsuits" are significantlydriving up healthcare costs misses the point entirely. The total cost of malpractice constitutes just 0.46 percent of totalhealthcare expenditures, and settlements have grown modestly with inflation.While approximately 98,000 people die each year from negligent treatment, amere 2 percent sue their physicians. As health policy analyst Maggie Maharobserved, "A very small group of doctors are losing or settling malpracticelawsuits, but they are losing big." Between 1990 and 2002, "5.2 percent ofdoctors were responsible for 55 percent" of all malpractice payouts. Theincreasing costs of malpractice insurance premiums are hurting doctors, butthey're not the real causes of our growing healthcare bill. In reality,

thelonger Republicans obscure the real issues and obstruct reform efforts, thehigher the costs will rise. Click here to buy a copy of Howard Dean's Prescription for Real HealthReform Howard Dean, former governor of Vermont, is the founder of Democracy forAmerica, a grassroots organization that supports socially progressive andfiscally responsible political candidates. © 2009 Chelsea Green Publishing All rights reserved. View this story online at: http://www.alternet .org/story/ 141713/

[Guest guest]

Sandy, I deeply sympathize with your suffering and the suffering of those in this thread. It is very important for you, and for all others to understand where this needless suffering is really coming from. Because you will see it again. Christ spoke the truth in John 10 when he said that someone who comes in through a window is not a shepherd, but a thief. And that thieves only come to take, to kill and to destroy. This is the killing part. What is happening in the markets is the taking part. And I'm certain we're about to see the destroying part. If you would like to understand the thievery, you must understand the money system. Please google "money as debt" and watch. What happened to your mother is called eugenics. And to understand eugenics, google and watch "endgame". It would be mad, but for thieves, there is a kind of sense to it. What thief wants their victims to live? Every thief wants to improve quality of life. They make their victims suffer. They poison the water. They take everything. Then they say their victims lives aren't worth living. And they help them out. What theif views his victims well? No, everyone gets a turn at being a useless eater to the theif. When someone speaks out, then these too are helped. Until their mouths stop working. If they object, then they need "medication". In the eyes of a thief, they are themselves the most useful members of society. Many things are sad but necessary to theives. And because they are strong, they help everyone out they can. Their motto is "order out of chaos", or as Proverbs put's it, "let us do evil so that good might result". So of course before a theif leaves a house with all it's wealth, they try to produce as much good as possible. Lest you think me mad, it is the experts themselves who are now saying what is coming is Nazi style eugenics. And that it will kill millions. oleander soup , Sandy eubank <sandyeubank wrote:>> > 6 weeks ago my 91 year old Father died,they did withhold nourishment.I did not understand how this was done,now I do. sandy>

[Guest guest]

Melly, thank you for that. After losing my husband to cancer and after one year and half of battling insurance companies and Medicaid, etc. This is one person who is not in denial regarding the need for change. Profit-driven healthcare is a contradiction in terms plain and simple.--- On Fri, 8/7/09, Melly Bag <tita_mel wrote:

Melly Bag <tita_mel Health Careoleander soup Date: Friday, August 7, 2009, 8:00 AM

 

 

 

 

 

Am of the opinion both Republicans and Democrats can be so evil.

Below is a material written by Howard Dean. Please ponder before going to your representatives/ governors if whether we should go for the change as the present system really stinks. As another member of a forum said, VA and Medicare do not deny treatments like the private insurance companies.

 

Melly

============ =====

Howard Dean: How Republican Attack Dogs Plan to Thwart Health Reform By Howard Dean, Chelsea Green Publishing Posted on August 3, 2009, Printed on August 3, 2009 http://www.alternet .org/story/ 141713/ Editor's note: In his new book, Howard Dean's Prescription for Real HealthReform, the physician and former presidential candidate devotes a chapter tothe forces arrayed against substantive health reform -- the insuranceindustry, big business, some pharmaceutical companies and politicalconservatives. The following is an excerpt in which he discusses the longfight against progress mounted by conservatives. During the early 1990s, under the leadership of Representative Newt Gingrich(R-GA) and Senator Bob Dole (R-KS) and bolstered by the ideological supportof the Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute, and Manhattan Institute,Republicans

successfully defeated President Clinton's health reform effort.Conservatives of all stripes argued that healthcare reform was "creepingsocialism" or "big government," denied the existence of a healthcare crisis,or co-opted the term reform to push their own agendas and dilute support fora comprehensive solution to the nation's healthcare crisis. Unfortunately, today's Republicans are no less inflammatory. Relying on avery similar playbook, conservatives are distorting progressive proposals inan effort to obstruct reform. In May 2009, GOP wordsmith Frank Luntzauthored a new messaging memo defining the Republican rhetoric on healthcarereform. The memo, titled "The Language of Healthcare 2009,is based onpolling results and . . . captures not just what Americans want to see butexactly what they want to hear." The memo suggests "The Words That Work" andinstructs that "from today forward, they should be

used by everyone." Luntz warns that "if the dynamic becomes 'President Obama is on the side ofreform and Republicans are against it,' then the battle is lost and everyword in this document is useless." The trouble is, the document is alreadyuseless. Because rather than challenging the tenets of American reformproposals, Luntz establishes a straw man argument against a nonexistenthealth plan. Buried amid the usual rhetoric about government-run healthcareis Luntz's predictable contradiction: He instructs Republicans to "bevocally and passionately on the side of REFORM" but then urges GOP lawmakersto misrepresent and obstruct any real chance of passing comprehensivelegislation. "Humanize your approach," but argue that healthcare reform "will result indelayed and potentially even denied treatment, procedures and/or medicationsAcknowledge the crisis" but ask your constituents "would you rather .

.. 'pay the costs you pay today for the quality of care you currently receive,OR 'Pay less for your care, but potentially have to wait weeks for testsand months for treatments you need.'" In other words, say there is a crisis but then argue that healthcare reformwould lead to "the government setting standards of care" and government rationing care" and would "put the Washington bureaucrats in charge ofhealth care.This plays into more favorable Republican territory byprotecting individual care while downplays the need for a comprehensivenational plan," the memo states. Readers are also instructed to conflate Obama's fairly moderate hybridapproach to reform (building on the current private-public system ofdelivering healthcare) with "denial horror stories from Canada & Co." Focus on timeliness-" the plan put forward by the Democrats will deny peopletreatments they need and make them

wait to get the treatments they areallowed to receive"-and argue that Republicans will provide "in a word,more: 'more access to more treatments and more doctors . . . with lessinterference from insurance companies and Washington politicians and specialinterests.'" But that's the major problem with Luntz's memo: It tries to obstruct healthreform by ignoring what Obama is actually offering. Instead, Luntz isattacking an easy extreme-what he wishes the Democrats were proposing-andpretending that the Republicans actually have some kind of healthcaresolution (the memo instructs Republicans to focus on targeting waste, fraud,and abuse). For their part, Republicans have no solution to the healthcare crisis. Infact, a recent article in Politico.com noted that the GOP is "stumbling" tofind new ideas for reforming the healthcare system. "No Republicans leadingthe charge . . . have coalesced the party

behind them," the article notes. Their message is still vague and unformed. Their natural allies amonginsurers, drug makers and doctors remain at the negotiating table with theDemocrats. So Republicans now worry the party has waited so long to figureout where it stands that it will make it harder to block what PresidentBarack Obama is trying to do." To the extent that Republicans are discussing healthcare, they're relying ontrite McCain-campaign talking points and old hands from the 1990s. In otherwords, they've outsourced the conversation to attack dogs and relinquishedthe serious debate about how to lower costs, increase access, and improvequality. The truth, and what the Politico.com article hints at, is that the GOPleadership has little understanding of healthcare issues. In February 2009,House Republicans formed a study group to devise so-called free-marketalternatives to President

Obama's healthcare proposal. Minority Leader JohnBoehner (R-OH) tapped former GOP whip Representative Roy Blunt (R-MO) tolead the group of sixteen Republicans, including Representatives MichaelBurgess (R-TX) and John Shadegg (R-AZ). "Through this working group,Republicans will develop real solutions to improve our health care system byputting patients before paperwork and frivolous lawsuits," Blunt promised.But at the group's first meeting, "members reviewed polling data and agreedto bring in a series of experts to discuss problems with the health caresystem and potential solutions." As of this writing, the Republicans haveyet to embrace a healthcare solution or properly diagnose the cause of the healthcare crisis. In April, the Health Policy Consensus Group, headed by the conservativeGalen Institute, published "a vision for consumer-driven health care reform"that focuses on tax breaks for

healthcare and giving Americans "control"over their healthcare dollars. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) had proposed asimilar plan during the presidential campaign, but he never convincedAmericans to abandon their employer-provided insurance for the promise ofcheaper coverage in the individual market. Part of the problem rests in thefallacy of the theory; the rest, in the burden of experience. After all,Americans are routinely denied coverage in the unregulated individual healthinsurance market, and small businesses are "frequently finding healthpolicies too expensive and are dropping coverage, sending even more peopleshopping for insurance." Healthy Americans who do find coverage enroll inbare-bones plans that offer little substantive protection. As The Miami Herald recently reported, insurers deny coverage for patientswith "diabetes, hepatitis C, multiple sclerosis, schizophrenia,

quadriplegiaParkinson's disease and AIDS/ HIV." Moreover, "some insurers willautomatically reject applicants who are using certain prescription drugs.Wellpoint denies anyone who within the past year has taken Abilify andZyprexa for mental disorders as well as Neupogen, which is used to treat theside effects of chemotherapy. Vista lists the anticoagulant warfarin and thepain medication OxyContin. Both companies list insulin." And why not? Competition without meaningful regulations incentivizescompanies to offer insurance to only the healthiest Americans. How elsecould they beat the insurer across the street? Offering coverage to sickerAmericans would attract a sicker pool of enrollees and serve as acompetitive disadvantage. In fact, free-market healthcare fits thedefinition of a failed market. A market fails when these conditions exist: . A monopoly, which occurs if a single buyer or seller can

exert significantinfluence over prices or output. In healthcare, "insurer and hospitalmarkets are increasingly dominated by large insurers and provider systems,"an Urban Institute report points out. "The increased concentration has madeit difficult for the nation to reap the benefits usually associated withcompetitive markets." . Negative externalities, which occur if the market does not take intoaccount the impact of an economic activity on outsiders. In the Wild Westenvironment of the individual health marketplace, companies leave thesickest patients without coverage. Healthcare costs increase for everyonewhen patients are forced to forgo early and appropriate care or to visit theemergency room once a condition becomes unbearable. . Asymmetric information, which occurs when one party has more or betterinformation than the other party. Americans looking for coverage in theindividual market

have no way of comparing different policies and rarelyknow what the plans actually cover. Conservative health proposals double down on this broken marketplace. They:(1) eliminate the employer tax exemption for health benefits, (2) provideeveryone with a refundable tax credit to go out and purchase individualcoverage, and (3) loosen the already lax insurer regulations. The resultsare predictable. Not only will Americans with preexisting conditions gowithout coverage-or, at best, be offered very expensive plans-but as healthyAmericans with bare-bones policies fall ill, they'll discover that theirinsurer has little enthusiasm for paying claims. Conservatives may no longer deny the existence of a healthcare crisis, butthey sure do misdiagnose the causes of rising healthcare costs. Blunt, forinstance, promised that "Republicans will develop real solutions to improveour health care system by putting

patients before paperwork and frivolouslawsuits." But to identify "real solutions," we must first properly diagnosethe problem. Blunt's argument that "frivolous lawsuits" are significantlydriving up healthcare costs misses the point entirely. The total cost of malpractice constitutes just 0.46 percent of totalhealthcare expenditures, and settlements have grown modestly with inflation.While approximately 98,000 people die each year from negligent treatment, amere 2 percent sue their physicians. As health policy analyst Maggie Maharobserved, "A very small group of doctors are losing or settling malpracticelawsuits, but they are losing big." Between 1990 and 2002, "5.2 percent ofdoctors were responsible for 55 percent" of all malpractice payouts. Theincreasing costs of malpractice insurance premiums are hurting doctors, butthey're not the real causes of our growing healthcare bill. In reality,

thelonger Republicans obscure the real issues and obstruct reform efforts, thehigher the costs will rise. Click here to buy a copy of Howard Dean's Prescription for Real HealthReform Howard Dean, former governor of Vermont, is the founder of Democracy forAmerica, a grassroots organization that supports socially progressive andfiscally responsible political candidates. © 2009 Chelsea Green Publishing All rights reserved. View this story online at: http://www.alternet .org/story/ 141713/